TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the loan in cash was taken from near relatives and the same was accounted in the appellant's and relatives' books of accounts ? And ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering that the appellant has had a reasonable cause as stipulated under Section 273B to substantiate taking loan in cash from relatives to pay the advance for sale of land?" 3. The short issue, which falls ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 274 read with Section 271D of the Act to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied under Section 271D of the Act. 7. The assessee's case was that she had received an advance amounting to Rs. 50,000/- from one Mr.Natesan on 01.4.2007 for the sale of an immovable property. However, the registration could not be done within time and hence, she borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from one Mr.Kishanlal HUF, who was none other than her uncle (mother's brother) on 31.5.2007 for repayment of the said advance. The further case of the assessee was that the said Mr.Natesan requested for additional three months' time for getting the property registered in his name and also agreed to pay higher sale consideration. Owing to that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount was borrowed by the assessee from her maternal uncle and maternal aunt. 10. In more or less identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court granted relief to the assessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Smt.M.Yesodha [reported in (2013) 351 ITR 265]. In the said case, the assessee claimed to have taken a loan of Rs. 20,99,393/- from her father in law for purchasing a property. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee had obtained the said loan in cash from her father in law, which was in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. The assessee contended that the amount received in cash from her f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the provision namely Section 273D of the Act uses the expression 'reasonable cause' and not the expression 'sufficient cause' and that the Authorities below rightly found that the reason given by the assessee was not a reasonable cause. 12. However, a similar contention was rejected by the Division Bench in the decision in the case of Smt.M.Yesodha wherein it was held that even though the assessee had not taken a specific plea of reasonable cause, it must be considered as applied to human action and where transactions were bona fide, penalty could not be imposed. 13. In the case on hand, the assessee had shown a cause for having received the amount in cash. Therefore, if the ....